Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v11y2018i6p1357-d149123.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Decision Support System for Public Funding of Experimental Development in Energy Research

Author

Listed:
  • Simon Hirzel

    (Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI, Breslauer Str. 48, 76139 Karlsruhe, Germany)

  • Tim Hettesheimer

    (Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI, Breslauer Str. 48, 76139 Karlsruhe, Germany)

  • Peter Viebahn

    (Wuppertal Institut für Klima, Umwelt, Energie, Döppersberg 19, 42103 Wuppertal, Germany)

  • Manfred Fischedick

    (Wuppertal Institut für Klima, Umwelt, Energie, Döppersberg 19, 42103 Wuppertal, Germany)

Abstract
New energy technologies may fail to make the transition to the market once research funding has ended due to a lack of private engagement to conclude their development. Extending public funding to cover such experimental developments could be one way to improve this transition. However, identifying promising research and development (R&D) proposals for this purpose is a difficult task for the following reasons: Close-to-market implementations regularly require substantial resources while public budgets are limited; the allocation of public funds needs to be fair, open, and documented; the evaluation is complex and subject to public sector regulations for public engagement in R&D funding. This calls for a rigorous evaluation process. This paper proposes an operational three-staged decision support system (DSS) to assist decision-makers in public funding institutions in the ex-ante evaluation of R&D proposals for large-scale close-to-market projects in energy research. The system was developed based on a review of literature and related approaches from practice combined with a series of workshops with practitioners from German public funding institutions. The results confirm that the decision-making process is a complex one that is not limited to simply scoring R&D proposals. Decision-makers also have to deal with various additional issues such as determining the state of technological development, verifying market failures or considering existing funding portfolios. The DSS that is suggested in this paper is unique in the sense that it goes beyond mere multi-criteria aggregation procedures and addresses these issues as well to help guide decision-makers in public institutions through the evaluation process.

Suggested Citation

  • Simon Hirzel & Tim Hettesheimer & Peter Viebahn & Manfred Fischedick, 2018. "A Decision Support System for Public Funding of Experimental Development in Energy Research," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-18, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:11:y:2018:i:6:p:1357-:d:149123
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/11/6/1357/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/11/6/1357/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bointner, Raphael, 2014. "Innovation in the energy sector: Lessons learnt from R&D expenditures and patents in selected IEA countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 733-747.
    2. Benedetto Lepori & Peter van den Besselaar & Michael Dinges & Barend van der Meulen & Bianca Potì & Emanuela Reale & Stig Slipersaeter & Jean Theves, 2007. "Indicators for comparative analysis of public project funding: concepts, implementation and evaluation," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(4), pages 243-255, December.
    3. Braun, Dietmar, 1998. "The role of funding agencies in the cognitive development of science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 807-821, December.
    4. Nestor Duch-Brown & Jose Garcia-Quevedo & Daniel Montolio, 2008. "Assessing the assignation of public subsidies: Do the experts choose the most efficient R&D projects?," Working Papers in Economics 207, Universitat de Barcelona. Espai de Recerca en Economia.
    5. Wei-dong Zhu & Fang Liu & Yu-wang Chen & Jian-bo Yang & Dong-ling Xu & Dong-peng Wang, 2015. "Research project evaluation and selection: an evidential reasoning rule-based method for aggregating peer review information with reliabilities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 1469-1490, December.
    6. Elise S Brezis, 2007. "Focal randomisation: An optimal mechanism for the evaluation of R&D projects," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(10), pages 691-698, December.
    7. Åhman, Max & Skjærseth, Jon Birger & Eikeland, Per Ove, 2018. "Demonstrating climate mitigation technologies: An early assessment of the NER 300 programme," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 100-107.
    8. William Bonvillian & Richard Atta, 2011. "ARPA-E and DARPA: Applying the DARPA model to energy innovation," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 36(5), pages 469-513, October.
    9. Hake, Jürgen-Friedrich & Fischer, Wolfgang & Venghaus, Sandra & Weckenbrock, Christoph, 2015. "The German Energiewende – History and status quo," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 92(P3), pages 532-546.
    10. Solak, Senay & Clarke, John-Paul B. & Johnson, Ellis L. & Barnes, Earl R., 2010. "Optimization of R&D project portfolios under endogenous uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(1), pages 420-433, November.
    11. Nestor Duch-Brown & Jose Garcia-Quevedo & Daniel Montolio, 2008. "Assessing the assignation of public subsidies: Do the experts choose the most efficient R&D projects?," Working Papers in Economics 207, Universitat de Barcelona. Espai de Recerca en Economia.
    12. Roper, Stephen & Hewitt-Dundas, Nola & Love, James H., 2004. "An ex ante evaluation framework for the regional benefits of publicly supported R&D projects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 487-509, April.
    13. Nadika A. Bulathsinhala, 2015. "Ex-ante evaluation of publicly funded R&D projects: Searching for exploration," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 42(2), pages 162-175.
    14. Jako Jellema & Henk A. J. Mulder, 2016. "Public Engagement in Energy Research," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-19, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fernandez Martinez, Roberto & Lostado Lorza, Ruben & Santos Delgado, Ana Alexandra & Piedra, Nelson, 2021. "Use of classification trees and rule-based models to optimize the funding assignment to research projects: A case study of UTPL," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1).
    2. Jan K. Kazak & Małgorzata Świąder, 2018. "SOLIS—A Novel Decision Support Tool for the Assessment of Solar Radiation in ArcGIS," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-12, August.
    3. J. M. Santos & H. Horta & H. Luna, 2022. "The relationship between academics’ strategic research agendas and their preferences for basic research, applied research, or experimental development," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(7), pages 4191-4225, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Carlos José Miranda Victório & Helder Gomes Costa & Cristina Gomes de Souza, 2016. "Modeling selection criteria of R&D projects for awarding direct subsidies to the private sector," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 275-287.
    2. Catalina Bolancé & Zuhair Bahraoui & Ramon Alemany, 2015. "Estimating extreme value cumulative distribution functions using bias-corrected kernel approaches," Working Papers XREAP2015-01, Xarxa de Referència en Economia Aplicada (XREAP), revised Jan 2015.
    3. Fernandez Martinez, Roberto & Lostado Lorza, Ruben & Santos Delgado, Ana Alexandra & Piedra, Nelson, 2021. "Use of classification trees and rule-based models to optimize the funding assignment to research projects: A case study of UTPL," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1).
    4. Antonio Manresa & Ferran Sancho, 2012. "Leontief versus Ghosh: two faces of the same coin," Working Papers XREAP2012-18, Xarxa de Referència en Economia Aplicada (XREAP), revised Oct 2012.
    5. Anna Castañer & Mª Mercè Claramunt & Alba Tadeo & Javier Varea, 2016. "Modelización de la dependencia del número de siniestros. Aplicación a Solvencia II," Working Papers XREAP2016-01, Xarxa de Referència en Economia Aplicada (XREAP), revised Sep 2016.
    6. Hyun-Kyu KANG, 2015. "Development of Guideline for Preliminary Feasibility Study on Government R&D Programs in Korea," Proceedings of International Academic Conferences 2805212, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences.
    7. Mercedes Ayuso & Montserrat Guillen & Jens Perch Nielsen, 2019. "Improving automobile insurance ratemaking using telematics: incorporating mileage and driver behaviour data," Transportation, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 735-752, June.
    8. Thomas, Duncan Andrew & Ramos-Vielba, Irene, 2022. "Reframing study of research(er) funding towards configurations and trails," SocArXiv uty2v, Center for Open Science.
    9. Esther-Vayá & José-Ramón-García & Joaquim-Murillo & Javier-Romaní & Jordi-Suriñach, 2016. "“Economic Impact of Cruise Activity: The Port of Barcelona"," IREA Working Papers 201613, University of Barcelona, Research Institute of Applied Economics, revised Nov 2016.
    10. Cherp, Aleh & Vinichenko, Vadim & Jewell, Jessica & Suzuki, Masahiro & Antal, Miklós, 2017. "Comparing electricity transitions: A historical analysis of nuclear, wind and solar power in Germany and Japan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 612-628.
    11. Anna Castañer & Mª Mercè Claramunt, 2014. "Optimal stop-loss reinsurance: a dependence analysis," Working Papers XREAP2014-04, Xarxa de Referència en Economia Aplicada (XREAP), revised Apr 2014.
    12. Inglesi-Lotz, Roula, 2017. "Social rate of return to R&D on various energy technologies: Where should we invest more? A study of G7 countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 521-525.
    13. Frank Crowley & Jane Bourke, 2017. "The Influence Of Human Resource Management Systems On Innovation: Evidence From Irish Manufacturing And Service Firms," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(01), pages 1-28, January.
    14. Grafström, Jonas & Poudineh, Rahmat, 2023. "No evidence of counteracting policy effects on European solar power invention and diffusion," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    15. Degirmenci, Tunahan & Yavuz, Hakan, 2024. "Environmental taxes, R&D expenditures and renewable energy consumption in EU countries: Are fiscal instruments effective in the expansion of clean energy?," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 299(C).
    16. David M. Newbery & David M. Reiner & Robert A. Ritz, 2018. "When is a carbon price floor desirable?," Working Papers EPRG 1816, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    17. Rentier, Gerrit & Lelieveldt, Herman & Kramer, Gert Jan, 2019. "Varieties of coal-fired power phase-out across Europe," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 620-632.
    18. Bongsuk Sung & Myung-Bae Yeom & Hong-Gi Kim, 2017. "Eco-Efficiency of Government Policy and Exports in the Bioenergy Technology Market," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-18, September.
    19. Newbery, David, 2018. "Policies for decarbonizing a liberalized power sector," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 12, pages 1-24.
    20. Kim, Yeong Jae & Wilson, Charlie, 2019. "Analysing energy innovation portfolios from a systemic perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:11:y:2018:i:6:p:1357-:d:149123. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.